A pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas candidate for the Iranian presidency, a man linked to Iranian-controlled front groups, brought former Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel to speak at Rutgers University in 2007, according to another professor on campus.

Hooshang Amirahmadi, who led Rutgers’ Center for Middle Eastern Studies when Hagel came to campus, is the founder and president of the American-Iranian Council. He arranged for Hagel’s speech on March 2, 2007, the faculty source told The Daily Caller.

This Amirahmadi fellow’s connection run straight to the government of Iran:

Amirahmadi’s CV discloses that he has received financial support from the Alavi Foundation, a wealthy organization that the U.S. government has called “a front for the government of Iran.”

And IRS records provided to TheDC by FoundationSearch.com show that between 2003 and 2008, Rutgers University received $688,000 from the same foundation.

Amirahmahdi, fancies himself as a moderate, but why does he receive monies from the Alavi foundation, then again this is not quantitatively different from Mousavian, who admitted to deceiving the IAEA, serving as a scholar in residence at Princeton,

It is always “McCarthyism” to tell the truth about and expose someones ties to an America and Jew hating Islamofascist front group. Especially when the bigot is a Democrat or one of their stooges, like Chuck Hagel.

The Anti-American types always try to shield themselves from criticism of their moral support for Americas enemies abroad. Such namecalling the only way to change the subject.

The problem with Hagel, is he wants the ‘comfy chair’ for Iran, but the rack for Israel, mind you he made these statements, in the aftermath of Ahmadinejad’s to destroy Israel, after Hezbollah’s war with Israel,

Its a shame how they went after Rudy Guilianni’s security firm for consulting in the middle east when Bill Clinton is constantly in Doha, Dubai, at the time. Clinton even with Secret Service in tow dropped in on the Girl Scout meetings for overseas cadets took pictures with the girls which were in all the arab magazines including my daughter and Bill – which made my 14 yr old a high value target in 2006 – we had to up our security.

News flash: Obama won the election. He has the prerogative to pick his own cabinet.

Did you EXPECT him to pick nominees you would like?

It’s one thing to dislike Hagel for his political views, but to try to make him out to be a “friend of Hamas” is ridiculous. McCarthy-esque. Overreaching. It’s a losing tactic… in that it causes Republicans to lose.

Kmart likes to echo Crissy Mathews. I is cute how it feigns concern over how opposing an unqualified candidate will cause electoral harm to do conservatives.

I think this is a test run by Teh Won. He wants to see how ridiculous of a pick he can advance, and not have the Dems or MFM object. So far, Kmart is 2 thumbs up for abject incompetence and complete lack o qualification.

It suggests to me, that Hagel, certainly knew who was funding this shindig, because why else would he ‘pulling his punches, Another recipient of the Alavi’s largesse, Gary Sick, yes that one, was all concerned over the Stuixtnet.

Hagel is more cautious (compared to, say, Rumfeld) about putting our troops into harm’s way where other options can work. If I were in the service, I would welcome someone like Hagel, who doesn’t use me as cannon fodder.

The President can nominate a ham sandwich to be Secretary of Whatever, if he desires. But the Senate retains the Constitutional authority to advise and consent.
The President can ignore their advice, but he cannot ignore their “consent,” since “consent” means the Senate must have an up or down vote on the nominee.

I know that’s disheartening to the totalitarian impulses inherent in left wingers, but that’s because those people don’t care for the Constitution as much as they care for Stalinism.

Apparently, this Kmart person who likes to comment from the public library computer (coincidentally only during Pacific Standard Time business hours !) has spent way too much time hanging around with the Sweet Princess of Cell Block 3 (Brett Kimberlin).

“Hagel is more cautious (compared to, say, Rumfeld) about putting our troops into harm’s way where other options can work. If I were in the service, I would welcome someone like Hagel, who doesn’t use me as cannon fodder.”

You are an idiot. Hagel has never made those decisions in the past, and does not make those decisions as SecDef. Obama has certainly not shown any tendency to be “more cautious” given his fecklessness in Afghanistan, and his incompetence in Libya.

You’ve made the best argument against Adolph Hagel’s nomination for Sec. of Defense.
You state that he’s good on “veterans affairs.”

Veterans affairs are handled by the VA—not the Secretary of Defense.
Then again, you’re a lefty who doesn’t even own his own computer, so you can’t be expected to know much about these things.
You should be pimping Hagel for the VA—not Sec of Defense.

I sure hope Hagel and Kmart study up on the role of Sec Def before he takes on that role. Apparently kmart thinks being good on veterans affairs qualifies one to run the DoD. And having a complete lack of knowledge about the DoD is apparently a feature, not a bug. Did you know Sec Def can wage war?

Only a disgusting person pretends not to know the difference between the VA and DoD.

The question was whether or not I thought he was good for servicemembers. And I cited his advocacy of veterans as an example of how he cares about the well-being of servicemembers. I didn’t say he was trying to head up the VA.

==Obama won the election. He has the prerogative to pick his own cabinet. Did you EXPECT him to pick nominees you would like?==

In our two party system which I happen to believe is central to the survival of our republic, the president of the party that won does have the perogative to pick his cabinet subject to confirmation. In most cases throughout history I think you will agree the best interests and safety of the United States while on his watch have been paramount in the president’s mind and in the choice he made. That is true, I think, even when the opposing party at the time was quite uncomfortable with the choice and/or firmly believed there would be a better approach. It was also true, I think, even when we recognize that most presidents have made errors in judgement while trying to protect the United States.

President Obama’s selection of Hagel does not fit the mold of a president who has the safety and the best interests of the United States at heart. It does not fit the mold of assuring that an honest man who loves this country and countrymen (warts and all) is put in charge of managing its defense. This is much more than a difference in approach. This is attempting to put a person with purposefully hidden ties to some of our most potent and dangerous enemies at the helm in the pentagon and in charge of our military.

I’m sorry, Kman, but this should concern even you. Why doesn’t it? Please slip off your partisan hat for just a sec –put on a mindful citizen of the U.S. hat–and see what happens.

This is attempting to put a person with purposefully hidden ties to some of our most potent and dangerous enemies at the helm in the pentagon and in charge of our military.

If you know of these ties, they aren’t “hidden”. But you don’t. You just have unsupported allegations of “ties”.

And even the word “ties” demonstrates how little evidence there is. What does “ties” mean? Chuck Hagel stood next to someone who knows someone who knows someone who is in Hamas?

Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein and nobody (even Dems) thought that made him unqualified to be Sec of Defense. They may have had OTHER reasons, but that wasn’t one of them.

I’m not concerned about Hagel because I like his approach and attitude about when and how our troops should be used. I think he has a 21st century understanding of warfare, unlike some of his predecessors, who I believed were fighting the last war.

At the time, and even now, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, that created Hezbollah, has been one of our lead adversaries, their path stretches from Beirut to Bonn to Buenos Aires, and they have aided our rivals in Afghanistan and Iraq,

Wasn’t he there as a personal representative of the President of the United States?
Isn’t it normal protocol for diplomatic representatives to be cordial, and shake the hand of, the Head of State whom they are visiting?

Kmart, you’re a clown, have always been a clown, and forever bring disrepute upon the legacy of Emmett Kelly.

McDonough also History at St. John’s in my neighborhood(keep your small children close, or they disappear).

Jack Lew “Lew attended Carleton College in Minnesota where his faculty adviser was Paul Wellstone”, must have been to tough cause he got his BA at Harvard.

When I matriculated across town at St. Olaf, Bork was the President at Carleton and it was the most selective school in the country, the average senior the year I was freshman had been valedictorian of their HS.

As I understand it, your point is that Hagel’s appearance with Amirahmadi could be “innocuous” and, to make that point (or perhaps to make a “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” argument), you compare it to Rumsfeld’s appearance with Saddam Hussein.

I think you are missing the point. The point is Hagel’s appearance resulted from his choice to accept an invitation from Amirahmadi — and thus a choice to associate himself with Amirahmadi — while Rumsfeld’s appearance resulted from the government’s decision to send him to meet with Saddam for a government purpose.

Thus, Hagel’s appearance at Amirahmadi’s invitation tells us about Hagel’s choice of associates and his judgment.

And I think you like Hagel because he’s basically anti-war, something he has in common with most liberals. Being a Republican makes that even nicer but the point is Hagel doesn’t want to send our troops to war — no matter how much it costs our country.

Thus, Hagel’s appearance at Amirahmadi’s invitation tells us about Hagel’s choice of associates and his judgment.

Well, I’m not sure Rumsfeld was required to shake Saddam’s hand either. Presumably, it was his judgment to do so.

Anyway, just because someone who heads the Rutgers Center for Middle Eastern Studies invites you to speak there — that doesn’t make you an “associate” of that person, nor does it mean you are beholden to anyone’s views but your own. It’s academia, not a political rally.

If you are not even willing to familiarize yourself with Hagel’s hearing, it simply reinforces what we know of you.

I heard most of it, and read the testimony. I don’t know what “simple questions” Hagel was unable to answer. I was just asking for some examples, because it there aren’t any, I’ll just assume it’s a falsehood generated by the rightwing self-authenticating bubble.

I don’t know and I’m not sure what you’re driving at here–but do you think Israel is an arch enemy of the United States? Do you think Israel pines for the destruction of the United States? Do you think Israel is likely to drop a bomb on Washington D.C. or another important American city?

It really sounds like you don’t know what’s going on, so you’re just happy to bang pots and pans with no meter or rhythm in mind.

Members of the Senate can vote Hagel down simply because they think he’s a jerk. Or they can vote him down because they feel he’s too sympathetic to our enemies, or they can vote him down because they perceive his intelligence and/or competency is not up to par. But being nominated by King Obama does not by definition guarantee qualification or confirmation by the Senate.

You and the Brett Kimberlin Company would prefer that everyone roll over for Barry Obama, but that’s not how we do things in the USA.
If you prefer to reside in a country where there’s a dictator, I’ll be happy to purchase you a one-way ticket to Cuba. (They have FREE health care !)

Hagel’s testimony was not impressive. Even supporters like Dave Weigel, who tried to come up with a plausible theory for Hagel’s bumbling, had a hard time explaining it:

Hagel’s goal Thursday was to consolidate that by getting at least one Republican on the committee to come out for him. Democrats hold 14 of 26 seats on Senate Armed Services, and none of them have hinted that they oppose Hagel. It made sense for Hagel to be demure—more sense than it made, say, for Barack Obama to approach his first debate with Mitt Romney as a do-no-harm scenario.

But the result was a nominee who searched for words like he was trapped in a closet, grasping for a dropped flashlight. Democrats praised Hagel’s Vietnam service, to the extent that Hagel encouraged them to ask about policy instead. He couldn’t get granular on any of that, he said, but “if confirmed, I intend to know a lot more than I do.” Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, a Hagel supporter, asked a pillowy-soft question about the nominee’s conversations with the president. “When he asked me why am I qualified,” said Hagel, “I said I’m not.” This was campaign-profile talk transplanted with maximum awkwardness to a situation in which people wanted to hear about expertise.

In response to questioning (sometimes by friendly Democrats), Hagel also told the Senate that “It doesn’t matter what I think,” “Doesn’t mean I’m right,” and “Doesn’t mean I didn’t make wrong votes.” He was a disaster, Kman.

He couldn’t get granular on any of that, he said, but “if confirmed, I intend to know a lot more than I do.” Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, a Hagel supporter, asked a pillowy-soft question about the nominee’s conversations with the president. “When he asked me why am I qualified,” said Hagel, “I said I’m not.”

In response to questioning (sometimes by friendly Democrats), Hagel also told the Senate that “It doesn’t matter what I think,” “Doesn’t mean I’m right,” and “Doesn’t mean I didn’t make wrong votes.” He was a disaster, Kman.

Well, he was asked his opinion about things for which he hadn’t formed an opinion. I don’t think that makes him uninformed. I just think it means he has an open mind and/or is future-oriented rather than trying to spin the past. Not necessarily a disqualifying factor. He certainly was knowledgeable about facts and key issues related to the world’s hot spots.

“A number of questions were asked of me today about specific programs, submarine programs, different areas of technology and acquisitions, and our superior technology. I’ve said I do not know enough about it. I don’t. There are a lot of things I don’t know about.”

Hagel also dispelled any concerns that he thought he “will be running anything”:

“If confirmed, I intend to know a lot more than I do. I will have to. But at the same time, I would never think that this, as I said earlier, is about me or I will be running anything.”

“I will be the leader. I’ll be responsible. I will be accountable, but I’ve got to rely on the right teams, the right people to bring those people together. And again, it’s accountability and responsibility. I would stop there, if that gives you some sense of how I would intend to do this business.”

Anyway, just because someone who heads the Rutgers Center for Middle Eastern Studies invites you to speak there — that doesn’t make you an “associate” of that person, nor does it mean you are beholden to anyone’s views but your own. It’s academia, not a political rally.

Please tell that to President Obama, who serves all the American people but who (as a candidate) boycotted a Fox News debate and (as President) tried to ban Fox News from the White House press pool. Apparently Obama thinks a mere appearance is something important.

Read the links. Hagel said “Doesn’t mean I’m right” and “Doesn’t mean I didn’t make wrong votes” regarding decisions he made about Syria as a Senator. These were things he should have formed opinions about because he voted on them.

I don’t think combat experience is necessary (although that helps), but certainly one must have experience at some level relating to oversight or management of the military. Time on an oversight committee, working on bills affecting the military, etc. — these are all good experiences.

Hagel said “Doesn’t mean I’m right” and “Doesn’t mean I didn’t make wrong votes” regarding decisions he made about Syria as a Senator. These were things he should have formed opinions about because he voted on them.

And?

That shows me that he’s not entrenched in his thinking. He has the ability to look back at past votes he made, and reconsider them in light of new evidence. He has an open mind.

I don’t know whether Hagel was paid for his speech but he was certainly invited by Amirahmadi, a person with ties to and backing from the Iranian government. That’s what the article is about. Does the fact that Amirahmadi has cover from his position at Rutgers make that irrelevant to you?

“Ties to” is a weasel phrase. “Backing from”, even more so. What does that mean?

Anyway, the whole guilt by (mere) association is McCathyesque. And desperate. The guy Hagel had “ties to” (for a day) isn’t a terrorist hiding in a cave; he’s sitting right there in a tweed suit in front of students at Rutgers. Get some perspective.

Amirahmadi’s CV discloses that he has received financial support from the Alavi Foundation, a wealthy organization that the U.S. government has called “a front for the government of Iran.”

Bill Clinton’s foundation has also received money from Alavi Foundation. People (or organizations) can donate to whoever you want. John Gotti once handed me $100. Doesn’t make me a member of the Mafia. Doesn’t mean I agree with the Mafia. You know what I mean?

Will you confirm that Amirahmadi’s affiliation with Rutgers gives cover to anyone who associates with him — in other words, that simply because Amirahmadi works for a university and regardless of his background or financial supporters, associating with him is acceptable?

It fits with the view that Obama was excused from his associations with Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, because at the time Obama spent time with them they were university professors.

Maybe one way for conservatives to make a difference in higher education is for conservatives to teach for free, perhaps as adjuncts. It would help universities out and provide points of view that are sorely needed.

Will you confirm that Amirahmadi’s affiliation with Rutgers gives cover to anyone who associates with him — in other words, that simply because Amirahmadi works for a university and regardless of his background or financial supporters, associating with him is acceptable?

“Associating” is another weasel word. It depends on the nature of the association. If Amirahmadi — who is so dangerous that he wants to end Iran’s nuke program and build peaceful ties to Isreal — also happens to serve on a NJ school board with me (he’s an American citizen), I would consider my “association” with him acceptable.

I’m sure kman was aghast when President Bush was tarred with his association with Enron’s Ken Lay, or Bob Jones, right?
Dick Cheney is still being pilloried with regard to Halliburton despite divesting his holdings(which were donated to charity) prior to becoming VP.

Dick Cheney is still being pilloried with regard to Halliburton despite divesting his holdings(which were donated to charity) prior to becoming VP.

Cheney’s association with Halliburton was both quantitatively and qualitatively different. He was CEO of Halliburton for years (after being SecDef and awarding it contracts).

And yes, if Hagel was founder and president of the American-Iranian Council for many years, I would have a problem with his SecDef nomination. But again, the only “association” we have was (at best) an invitation to speak at an American university. Hardly the same thing.

As I pointed out earlier, the Alavi foundation has been known to be a Iranian government front, for about 15 years, and New Jersey, where Christie nominated a lawyer for a Hamas operative, Quatanani, to the high court, don’t go there.

You repeatedly claim I’m speaking in weasel words for using words like associations and ties. Those are words with clearly defined meanings so please tell me what words you find acceptable. Do people have to have legal, business or even family relationships before you see them as meaningful?

Instead of watching America’s fighting men get stuck with Obama’s damaged goods, I’d rather take a chance on a random pick of the guys still upright at closing time from the local American Legion Post.

At least whoever it was isn’t likely to be in cahoots with the sand people.

You’ve been actively defending Hagel in this thread for a few hours now, even though you’re confused about the differences between the DoD and the VA.
I’d say that constitutes being “invested” in Chuck Hagel’s confirmation.

But, hey, you’re merely standing up for a fellow traveler (Hagel) in the “the Israel Lobby has Washington DC by the balls !” camp.

Chuck Hagel’s nomination is not coincidental.
It’s very consistent with Obama’s decades long fascination with anti-Israel politicians, activists, academians, and bomb-throwers…a group which happens to have a lot of intersection with Brett Kimberlin and his Sycophants Psychophants.

You repeatedly claim I’m speaking in weasel words for using words like associations and ties. Those are words with clearly defined meanings…

Hahaha! They’re really not very descriptive words at all, which is why people resort to them when they lack hard evidence.

A person four degrees from Kevin Bacon has a different “tie” to him than Kevin Bacon’s brother. A loose association, or a meaningful association? They’re both “associations” of a sort. But it makes a big difference which one you’re talking about, especially if you are accusing someone (i.e., Hagel) of wrongdoing.

DRJ – An unwillingness to disclose remuneration for speeches, the content of speeches or even all speeches given by a cabinet nominee do not necessarily demonstrate an attempt by such cabinet nominee to conceal or obfuscate unsavory ties, connections, patterns of behavior and thought relevant to his/her cabinet position, but they do not meet the standard for transparency set by the current administration (heh!) or inspire confidence in those reviewing the nominee’s qualifications and philosophy.

The question before the Senate is very simple. Have the nominee’s disclosures been complete and truthful. Even Kman can not answer in the affirmative.

Lots of people lost loved ones, had lives disrupted by 9/11 in the hundreds of thousands, I’m sorry for your loss however then, who is Kimberlin?

As far as I know, Brett Kimberlin is a guy who committed a bombing some 35-ish years ago, who served some time for that. Now he works as a fundraiser for some lefty non-profits. That’s all I can say with any degree of confidence.

I also know that many of you guys are obsessed with him — pathologically so, in some cases — for reasons beyond my understanding. And I can’t understand why the Kimberlin obsessors (both pro and anti) don’t have any better things — anything would be better — to do with their time and energy.

I also know that many of you guys are obsessed with him — pathologically so, in some cases — for reasons beyond my understanding. And I can’t understand why the Kimberlin obsessors (both pro and anti) don’t have any better things — anything would be better — to do with their time and energy.

Why do you ask?

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 2/18/2013 @ 1:54 pm

I got to ask, who was this person who died on 9/11 Kman that you knew – I need a name -

Kimberlin could be behind the attempted murder of PAt by calling the police and telling them he had jkilled his wife – he has sued people – made false statements to legal authorities

Its a shame they prey on dead person’s family by saying they were a friend etc when it was soo transparent that they were just throwing that comment aginst the wall while calling us crazies to be upset that a terrorist maybe behind an attempt on Pats life.

Gawds. What goes on in the mind of a person like Kman deserves an episode from Nova or a feature article in Science magazine.

That an anti-Semitic Republican along the lines of Chuck Hagel, full of a weird type of rightism (or ultra-conservatism), will be treated by a liberal (or ultra-liberal) in a way reminiscent of the enablers of, say, Adolph Hitler (“but he kept the trains running on time!”), illustrates just how screwed up that liberal’s thought patterns have to be.

I know there are certain folks on the right who will do back flips and the Watusi to excuse the shortcomings or wrongdoings of a conservative/Republican. But it’s people on the left who have fine tuned rationalizations and excuses to an art, and who do that more frequently, more absurdly, more nonsensically.

That’s why communities and societies dominated by liberals (certainly modern-day ones) are more likely to end up ludicrously corrupt, in various shapes and forms.

“Will you confirm that Amirahmadi’s affiliation with Rutgers gives cover to anyone who associates with him — in other words, that simply because Amirahmadi works for a university and regardless of his background or financial supporters, associating with him is acceptable?”

The ‘cover’ is speaking at the State university of New Jersey on invitation of the head of a department. That’s the story and you’re sticking to it huh?

SPQR has done well showing Kman’s moral flexibility, but I’m more amused by Kman’s problem with those who ‘had nothing better to do’ than bring light to Brett Kimberlin’s story… the story of a man who in my opinion got away with a murder, and also did many anti free speech activities while raising millions for a dubious charity.

Kman has long been obsessed with ‘those who have nothing better to do’ than stick their noses in scandals Kman doesn’t think are newsworthy. I wonder why Kman doesn’t have anything better to do?

It’s interesting to me that I can understand your position but you can’t understand mine. I realize that Amirahmadi’s position at Rutgers gives him a certain validity whether he deserves it or not. I also realize that there are limits to expecting people to take his background into account when making their decisions. For instance, I don’t think a prospective Rutgers student should avoid going to Rutgers solely because Amirahmadi is there (although IMO the Rutgers’ administrative decision-making that thought it would be good to hire him is a valid concern).

But at some point, I think people should question Amirahmadi’s background before deciding to associate with him. I think Hagel showed poor judgment regarding this invitation and you don’t. I also think you show poor judgment in not being able to comprehend why I might think that.

It’s like you’ve decided this dude is bad and now you got to spin the world to match that, and you’re not even noticing how silly and yes, mccarthyistic, it sounds slam someone for ‘associating’ with the State University of New Jersey.

And, yes, dude, I saw your sarcastic “how else was Ayers going to write Obama’s book.” Why don’t you just say how clever you are and how clueless I am, since we all know that’s what you think. Like Obama, aren’t you all about transparency?

A pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas candidate for the Iranian presidency, a man linked to Iranian-controlled front groups, brought former Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel to speak at Rutgers University in 2007, according to another professor on campus.

Hooshang Amirahmadi, who led Rutgers’ Center for Middle Eastern Studies when Hagel came to campus, is the founder and president of the American-Iranian Council. He arranged for Hagel’s speech on March 2, 2007, the faculty source told The Daily Caller.

This Amirahmadi fellow’s connection run straight to the government of Iran:

Amirahmadi’s CV discloses that he has received financial support from the Alavi Foundation, a wealthy organization that the U.S. government has called “a front for the government of Iran.”

And IRS records provided to TheDC by FoundationSearch.com show that between 2003 and 2008, Rutgers University received $688,000 from the same foundation.

<i>Iran’s Guardian Council cleared Amirahmadi to run for the presidency in 2013. Approval of the regime is required before candidates’ names can appear on the ballot. To be approved, candidates must be Shia, male, and committed to the Islamic revolution.

He attempted to mount a campaign in 2005, but the Guardian Council disqualified him.

SooperMexican – President Narcissism Celebrates President’s Day With A Picture of… Himself!!

Pathetic.

BTW, if I’m not mistaken, there is currently only ONE famous figure in the over 230 years of US history (which, therefore, doesn’t include Christopher Columbus) who has a federally recognized holiday named for him, that being Martin Luther King Jr.

By clumping together into “Presidents Day” the holidays that originally honored George Washington and Abraham Lincoln individually, that means even a worthless egotist like Obama can now assume today is all about him—-glorious, beautiful, compassionate, wonderful, noble, generous, selfless, brilliant him.

Hello, friend.
If you actually would go read Bill Ayers’ memoir “Fugitive Days,” then were to read “Dreams From my Fall-down Drunken, Bigamist, Sex-Obsessed Father” you would see some striking “coincidences” in language, as well as anecdotes.
Both books are written in Ayers’ style and particular use of language which can be determined by reading his other works.
(For a quick example, see the way that “Dreams” uses explicit nautical/sea metaphors throughout the book. Ayers had been in the Merchant Marines for a couple of years. Furthermore, “Obama” never used that type of language before, nor since.)

Also, in “Dreams,” there are some mistakes that “Obama” makes about his own life, such as the timeline of when he met Michelle. It is rather bizarre that a writer would not “catch” those errors during the various stages of proofreading. Then again, I suppose that’s what happens when you don’t actually proofread your own autobiography that someone else wrote for you.

I realize that with Obama Zombies such as yourself, there’s always an excuse, always an exception, always a justification for why Obama should not be expected to adhere to the same reasonable standards than any other writer should be held to.

I know you’re closed-minded about this issue, but you ought to read what Jack Cashill has written about this topic.

Hillary! is the most respected politician in the US if the polls can be believed.

The name escapes me. But the guy who asked her the question that forced Hillary! to mumble some giggerish about how it didn’t matter what happened as long as, uhh, the Senate got down to the business of figgering out what happened in Benghazi so it don’t happen again was outclassed from the start.

Silly him. He wasted his life running a business or something.

Unlike Hillary! he didn’t spend his entire adult life figuring out how to lie to committees.

And what I find really amazing is which one of the two people want to put in charge of running their lives.

It is rather bizarre that a writer would not “catch” those errors during the various stages of proofreading.

It’s also bizarre a writer wouldn’t pick up on the errors in his own bio. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not a birther. Still, if my claim to fame was having written two books about myself before I accomplished anything I’d think I’d have the time to spend noticing the publisher said I was born in Kenya.

Actually, I’d have the time to waste not telling the publisher I was born in Kenya in the first place.

But then this is the guy who swears up and down that the survey he filled out as an Illinois Senator in his own handwriting about banning handguns wasn’t him.

FWIW, I’ve come across some forums over the past few days where various people have been snickering about Obama spending the holiday hundreds of miles apart from his wife—he in Florida, she in Colorado (with the kids).

Observers have been sarcastically implying that such an arrangement reflected Obama’s, er, uh, sexual predilections. But what was known (or publicized in the media) up until today about his weekend guests did make me think the cynics were reading too much into the situation.

Methinks I can be quite a naif.

weeklystandard.com, via drudgereport.com

Via the pool report:

AF1 wheels down Andrews at 7:45pm. POTUS came back to have a 10-minute off the record talk with pool at the end of the flight.

Reggie Love departed AF1 soon after POTUS, apparently a guest for the weekend.

Reggie Love is Obama’s former right-hand man, who filled a peculiar, rather ill-defined role in the administration until the day he departed. A day which was publicized in an equally peculiar or unusual official press release—ie, peculiar because generally only bigwigs or VIPs in presidencies of the past have received such coverage.

Of course, Obama has way too much common sense and good judgment to be an oddball, to do totally inappropriate things (hey, he nominated Hagel, didn’t he?)

I do wonder what history books in the future will reveal about this nation’s current president, the comings and goings of its current White House.

The brochure that Obama’s publisher put out that contained Obama listing his birthplace as Kenya, should have become a bombshell of a story.
(Then again, so should have Benghazi.)

Now, I’m like you…I think he cynically wanted to appear more “exotic” to the left wing crowds by claiming Kenya as his birthplace, even though it appears he was actually born out of wedlock in Hawaii.

Those types of brochures are updated periodically with the newest info about the authors. For instance, author X might now have two additional children to brag about, or this author might now be teaching at a different university than last year’s brochure says, and this author has a new book that needs to be listed on the brochure.
Point being, Obama had every opportunity in the world, year after year, to change or amend the info in his own bio.

“(For a quick example, see the way that “Dreams” uses explicit nautical/sea metaphors throughout the book. Ayers had been in the Merchant Marines for a couple of years. Furthermore, “Obama” never used that type of language before, nor since.)”

I had heard the sea metaphors one before but I did not expect to reel in that whopper this time around.

Yes, apparently the good professor, said ‘Hamas and Hezbollah’ are not terrorists, and Ahmadinejad, who he invited, and started his career taking American embassy personnel, hostage,
only has an issue with Israel.

You mean like a COMPOSITE Girlfriend?? Like Diana Oughton??? Diana, got BLOWED UP!!! In Greenwich Village. Yes!!! Diana was making a BOMB!!!! She will BILL AYERS GIRLFRIEND. Diana Oughton got BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS in Greenwich Village!!!
Nail bombs do not damage BUILDINGS.

SPQR, ha, ha, yes, the situation does lend itself to use of a much stronger word than “irony.”

And DRJ, what are the odds that both Ayers and ‘Obama’ would each not only mention Frantz Fanon in their respective books, but also misspell Frantz Fanon’s name in their books—by each making the exact same spelling error ?
(…on top of the fact that you’re wondering, who the hell is Frantz Fanon ?)

Also, they each make the same mis-quotation of a Carl Sandburg poem.

But it’s allll coincidental, because, hey, that Bill Ayers was “just a guy in the neighborhood. Our kids go to school together.”
(What a liar. Ayers’ kids are old enough to be the biological parents of Obama’s kids.)

With all the sockpuppetry that you engage in, you ought to consider getting Bill Ayers to do your ghostwriting in the comment sections of blogs such as this one.

Of course, that is if you don’t mind having your “name” associated with various nautical metaphors and misquoted poems.

Cause right now, it looks like your boat is adrift at sea, and there’s no harbor in sight. And you’re a man without a life jacket.
In such a scenario, we expect you’ll try to divert attention by rearranging the deck chairs.

In 2010, Dinesh D’Souza theorized about what motivates Obama and decided it was Obama’s desire to succeed where his father failed, particularly in fighting anti-colonialism. In D’Souza’s opinion, Obama’s father wanted to curtail the power of the British but the son wanted to rein in the only remaining superpower, America. That’s consistent with the theme of Dreams of My Father.

If D’Souza is correct, it is ironic that Bush 43 focused his power and spent America’s resources remedying the problems of his father’s administration. Meanwhile, his successor, Barack Obama, is focusing his power and spending America’s resources pursuing his father’s goals. Perhaps they are both little more their father’s sons.

== You need to spin a talk at the State University of New Jersey into something nefarious.==

So, according to to “Lars”‘ thinking if it happened at a State University then whatever it was was just fine. No question about it.

But hey, remember that Human Sexuality professor at Northwestern University who invited the couple to speak and demonstate the f*cksaw? They didn’t have the good sense to decline the invite and the cash either. And the fact that Northwestern is a top rated university didn’t exactly provide “cover for any of them who were involved.

I need that name of your9/11 victum that you are using as a moral authority to call us obsessive over terrorists

I don’t think knowing a 9/11 victim gives me “moral authority” on any subject. Apparently you do, but that’s your problem. You’re not getting her name, mainly because you people engage in personal destruction and ad hominem attacks as an alternative to legitimate debate. I’m impervious to that, but I’m not going to drag her name into your shark tank.

you people engage in personal destruction and ad hominem attacks as an alternative to legitimate debate. I’m impervious to that,

Comment by Kman (5576bf)

Kman has been obsessively following people around with comments like that for ten years. Ten years of weird and insulting comments with a theme of ‘I’m better than you’. Ten years of dishonest responses like

which deliberately twist what others say in order to attempt to anger them (and change the subject, such as in this case that Hagel has ties to a sympathizer of islamofascism that mirror Obama’s ties to a supporter of domestic terrorism).

Any discussion Kman enters quickly becomes uglier, angrier, and less interesting. And he knows that. That’s why he came here and invested what looks like an enormous amount of his apparently very, very free time.

It’s obvious you’re merely pretending to have a “friend” who “died” in the 9/11 attacks. (Interesting how you didn’t say she was murdered.)

Your premise that we conservatives are going to attack “her” legacy is silly considering that we’re all sympathetic to the Americans who were murdered by Islamo-fascist terrorists on 9/11. What you’re like doing is like telling us you used to know a star player from our favorite sports team, then saying, “Well, I’m not going to tell you who it is, because you’ll probably make fun of that player.”

WTF ?
We would be sympathetic to them, since they were on “our” team !

Or, by not divulging her name, you sound like the punk who tells the cop, “Yeah, you can search my car, but you can’t look in the glovebox—but I’m totally not hiding anything in the glovebox !—I swear !”

Kman, I do think you have some kind of mental hangup. I’m not saying you’re mentally ill or attempting to insult you, but your behavior isn’t healthy and I hope you work it out, but if you did, another troll would take your place, so it doesn’t necessarily matter to the rest of us that much.

You are too worried about being ‘better’ than strangers in internet threads, and have been concerned about that for a very long time. If you want to feel superior, at least get that out of charity work or something.

It’s obvious you’re merely pretending to have a “friend” who “died” in the 9/11 attacks.

You have no idea how unimportant to me whether you believe it or not. I only brought her up to demonstrate that having “ties” to terrorists can mean anything — being a victim to a terrorist is a “tie”. The word is virtually meaningless.

So the worst you can say about Hagel is that he has some unspecified and vague “tie” — well, I’m not particularly impressed. Nor am I fearful that he is going to act against the interests of the United States. Apparently some of you nellies are afraid of that, or are at least pretending to because Obama bad.

don’t think knowing a 9/11 victim gives me “moral authority” on any subject. Apparently you do, but that’s your problem. You’re not getting her name, mainly because you people engage in personal destruction and ad hominem attacks as an alternative to legitimate debate. I’m impervious to that, but I’m not going to drag her name into your shark tank.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 2/19/2013 @ 6:21 am

The name Kman, the name.

You made several ad hominem attacks and then to deflect the blowback you claimed to be attached to 9/11 personally. I agree that you are attached personally, and you dont have to be acquainted personally with anyone in New York or DC that day.

The problem is that you lied, lied because you spewed lies nd then tried to drag someone from the death list into it to deflect.

So I want the name -

Pat has two young children who love him very much who might have seen a horible sight of their father being grabbed screamed at pointed guns at and put intoi a police car and you think we obsess over this – look Pat doesnt even like me but youwent over the line and now are trying to play the victim

btw, I’m sorry for your loss, if you did lose a friend on 9/11. I wouldn’t name her either, but the way you brought her up suggested an appeal to moral authority (That you now appear to want to back away from).

Islamofascist violence like 9/11 hurts a lot of people and I have no problem believing you were affected too. Can you understand why we would have concerns about Hagel’s ties to Mr Amirahmadi?

You are too worried about being ‘better’ than strangers in internet threads, and have been concerned about that for a very long time.

I’m not worried about it, Dustin. I just would appreciate more thoughtful discussion, rather than who can come up with the best anti-Obama zinger and/or original ad hominem retort. There are a few people on here that actually engage in thoughtful discussion from time to time, and I respect that.

Notice, Dustin, that the troll didn’t answer your question. Are you surprised? I think you hit awfully close to home in your analysis of why that person posts, and the projection that suffuses every comment by him.

Can you understand why we would have concerns about Hagel’s ties to Mr Amirahmadi?

No, Dustin, I honestly can’t.

As I’ve said, the “tie” seems to involve one remote incident in which he was asked to speak at a public university. Now, people in the public spotlight, like Hagel, mix and talk to a wide crowd of people — in business, in academia, in politics. I’m certain that not ALL of those people are on the up-and-up. But to “tie” Hagel to this academic is to suggest a stronger connection (I suspect) doesn’t exist in reality. If you are suggesting that Hagel is some spy for Iran, or he is a member of some pro-Iranian anti-American club, then say that and provide evidence. But lacking that, I really don’t see what the concern is.

I am tired of threads where we wind up talking about eachother instead of some interesting policy issue or newsworthy event. That’s inevitable when trolls appear and ‘argue’ by describing the views of others in dishonest and ugly ways. It’s inevitable when trolls try to judge others (which is pathetic).

Can you understand why we would have concerns about Hagel’s ties to Mr Amirahmadi?

Notice how they minimize the party in question, then proceed to savage an army of strawpeople? Kmart can’t understand our concerns because he is either incapable, or unwilling. Ms Doubtfire has shown no ability or desire to view anything from a perspective other than the hard left.

As I’ve said, the “tie” seems to involve one remote incident in which he was asked to speak at a public university.

I am pretty sure that is one of many issues that have informed those with concerns about Hagel. Yes, Hagel has ties to a supporter of the Iranian dictatorship, but he also has a rich background of similar issues that have been well discussed.

I don’t want to bother discussing this with someone who already knew that but pretended he didn’t. It’s tiresome.

Dustin – c’mon. Surely you got a good laugh when it claimed that being good on veterans benefits shows he is qualified to be Sec Def, and that the person who needs to google the DoD shows knowledge of how a 21st century military should operate.

The issue is really with the Alavi foundation, they buy the Iranian regime credibility, as with Sick, who became it’s devil’s advocate, on Stuixtnet, Dabashi who is the new Said wannabe,
and this last fellow,

I don’t know folks. I do know that the Left puts anything the Right does under a microscope, and then puts on Mr. Magoo glasses for the Left. Seriously. I haven’t heard an uproar over the Colorado politician’s comments about rape. Todd Akin heard, um, so uproar. There is a long list.

And sometimes, the Right does this too.

What we need to do is force folks to be intellectually consistent. But that doesn’t work; heck, you can quote the President himself (in 2008) about the debt crisis, juxtaposed against his current comments, and it looks like he is arguing with himself.

So, in this case, I don’t want to hear how a Right politician is “besmirched” by having dinner with a Christian who says odd things. Hagel has associated with people who defend genocide. Now, you can say “they” didn’t mean it, and Hagel doesn’t approve…but (1) I haven’t heard Hagel criticize those statements directly (nor significantly, did he give back the money), and (2) why can’t that philosophy be applied to the Right?

Because to the Left, the Right is not merely wrong. They are evil, and need to be defeated by any means possible.

Let’s be honest. In real life everyone is familiar with someone like Kman from work or in other settings. Who knows what’s going on inside, but outwardly that person comes across as a haughty know-it-all-and always wants to loudly share his/her thoughts but doesn’t listen to others’ views or interact with anything resembling an open mind. It is a person who seems to need to be right at all costs–have the last word– or challenge or oneup what somebody else has just said. That person either doesn’t recognize, or care, how he comes across to others but he is never a popular or respected associate because people can’t trust his judgement or his reasoning skills.

As many here proved once again yesterday it is impossible to have a useful normal conversation with Kman. It is a waste of time.

n. Surely you got a good laugh when it claimed that being good on veterans benefits shows he is qualified to be Sec Def, and that the person who needs to google the DoD shows knowledge of how a 21st century military should operate.

Comment by JD (b63a52) — 2/19/2013

It’s disturbing how consistent this pattern has become with the Administration. The guy running the US treasury couldn’t even pay his taxes, and he defends that by saying he lacked the ability to operate Turbotax!

Why wouldn’t the guy running the DoD be conspicuously unprepared for the job?

And John Kerry as SecState… someone who has condemned this country famously… is now our representative abroad! That’s the face we want?

Whatever is going on behind the scenes with appointments, it is not a sober discussion of who is ready for tasks.

Next thing you know, Obama will appoint Dick Morris as his political director.

Really, everyone, I appreciate the psychoanalysis conducted remotely through the Internet. But I’m actually making points here regarding the topic at hand (Hagel). Making the topic about me — whether jokes or “serious” psychoanalysis — is a rather flimsy way to deflect the points I’m making.

Still, I don’t want to be a terd in the punchbowl, because I recognize that it makes the KoolAid you drink taste bad. I’ve made my points — I’ll leave you all (for now) to continue in your echo chamber of Hagel and Obama-bashing.

Kmart – you aren’t making points, you are cheerleading, obfuscating, and intentionally misdirecting from the clear points made. DRJ tried and got nowhere with you. At this point, Obama could nominate Zombie Jinjis Con for Sec State, and you would point to his stellar human rights record.

If it were really so “unimportant” to you whether or not we believe that you knew someone who “died” on 9/11, then you would give up the name—you know, since it’s allegedly not a big deal to you, as you just stated.

But there’s always a semantic loophole you provide for yourself to escape having to finish a conversation. You like to hit and run, and shuck and jive.
That’s not the tactic of a confident debater—rather, that’s the tactic of a con man.

Was this alleged person in the Twin Towers ?
Were they on Todd Beamer’s plane ? I don’t know what we could possibly say about the “person” that would hurt you so much. We’re sympathetic to everyone who was murdered in those attacks.

Again, Elephant Stone, I only brought her up to demonstrate how loose the word “ties” is. It’s not important that you know her name. It’s not important that I have your sympathy. It’s not even important that you even believe me.

Why are you obsessed about knowing her identity? What does it get you, and how is knowing her name relevant to the discussion about Hagel’s “ties”?

As shown in the link in Patterico’s post, Amirahmadi is running for President but he’s doing so with the consent of the Iranian government — consent that was denied in 2005. The quote is in my comment #257 and there’s a question about it in my comment #258.

Also, were you concerned about ties between the Bushes and the Saudis, or did you dismiss those concerns as based on weasel words?

By the way, what’s the difference between ties/associations and an appearance of impropriety?

Many Americans have a one or two degrees of separation to someone who was murdered by the Islamo-fascist terrorists on 9/11.
The fact that you were trying to pimp your “association” as something unique, thereby providing you with inherent wisdom into the conversation about Chuckie Hagel, was rather silly and a distraction from the fact that Hagel was rubbing elbows with an anti-American nutjob at Rutgers.

Funny how all these people in Obama’s inner circle have so many “innocuous” connections and invitations to/by domestic terrorists or Alinskyites or shady Islamo-fascist sympathizers.
You know, like Bill Ayers was “just a guy in the neighborhood.”

There were some conservative economists at the University of Chicago who also lived “in the neighborhood,” but Obama for some reason didn’t appear to hang out with them. I guess because Obama considered them to be the creeps of the neighborhood—unlike the upstanding domestic terrorist couple, Ayers & Doehrn, who lived around the corner.

But Bill Ayers Obama wrote it best about his Occidental College days in “Dreams From My Communist Drunken Sex-Obsessed Father,” “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

In other words, Obama very carefully chooses his friends and associates. He selected Hagel for Secretary of Defense because his attitudes toward Israel coincide with Obama’s.
He won the election, and he has the authority to nominate whoever he desires, but we likewise have the right to challenge that nomination.

From welcome remarks by Hooshang Amirahmadi, AIC President, at the 2011 AIC Conference:

“We are for better US-Iran relations and advocate constructive engagement; we do not play the stop-and-go game with diplomacy, justifying it with election disputes or human rights abuses in Iran!

We strongly support the human rights of the Iranian people, and condemn the Iranian government for the abuses. But we believe that the Iranian nuclear programs and its human rights issue should be treated independently.

We do not say we believe in human rights and engagement and then hold them hostage to each other! We do not play politics with diplomacy and peace or with the human rights of the Iranian people!

We disagree with the policy that politicizes Iranian New Year (Nowruz) and student visa as means toward “regime change.” We think Iran’s domestic affairs must be kept separate from its international relations to avoid complicating their resolutions.

We are opposed to sanctions of any kind and war for any reason and categorically. We do not say we are for engagement and against sanctions and then support “targeted” sanctions, justifying them as instruments of diplomacy for furthering human rights and engagement!

We do not say we are against war and regime change and then promote or support policies that are designed toward those eventualities. We believe war and regime change are both terrible ideas given the complex environment of Iran today and of US-Iran relations.

We believe trade and diplomacy melt dictators while sanction and isolation fatten them! We believe diplomatic tie with the US is a precondition for democratic change in Iran. No country has ever become democratic in the absence of good relations with the United States.

We are for better US-Iran relations, for a nuclear weapon-free Iran, and for democracy and human rights of the Iranian people. We reject sanctions, containment, isolation, and offensive force as counterproductive toward these noble goals; we despise war-mongering projects such as “Iranium.””

“AIC’s leadership and conference speakers have included some of the finest American statesmen and strategic thinkers such as the late Secretary Cyrus Vance, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary Madeleine Albright, Secretary Dona Shalala, Senator John Kerry, Senator Bennett Johnston, Senator Chuck Hagel, Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Ambassador Frank Wisner, Ambassador Robert Pelletreau, and now the Honorable Admiral William Fallon.”

“Anti-Israel, pro-Iran university professors are being funded by a shadowy multimillion-dollar Islamic charity based in Manhattan that the feds charge is an illegal front for the repressive Iranian regime.

The deep-pocketed Alavi Foundation has aggressively given away hundreds of thousands of dollars to Columbia University and Rutgers University for Middle Eastern and Persian studies programs that employ professors sympathetic to the Iranian dictatorship.

“We found evidence that the government of Iran really controlled everything about the foundation,” said Adam Kaufmann, investigations chief at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

Federal law-enforcement authorities are in the midst of seizing up to $650 million in assets from the Alavi Foundation, which they charge funnels money to Iran-supported Islamic schools in the United States and to a syndicate of Iranian spies based in Europe.

In one of the biggest handouts, the controversial charity donated $100,000 to Columbia University after the Ivy League school agreed to host Iranian leader and Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to the foundation’s 2007 tax filings obtained by The Post……”

Also, were you concerned about ties between the Bushes and the Saudis, or did you dismiss those concerns as based on weasel words?

“Ties” is a weasel word no matter who it is applied to. You need to spell out the nature of the “ties”.

With Bush, you had (among other things) Saudi investment in the Carlyle Group (the private equity firm of Bush Senior), the Saudi funding of Bush Senior’s presidential library, and tons of the lucrative contracts from the Saudis to Halliburton (when Dick Cheney was CEO).

That’s far more significant “ties” than Hagel and Amirahmadi, and yet I didn’t find any of that worrisome at the time; the Bushes were, after all, oil men, and it’s not surprising that they did significant business with Saudis.

By the way, what’s the difference between ties/associations and an appearance of impropriety?

Appearance of impropriety is often explained away. The Rumsfeld-Hussein handshake, for example. So I don’t consider it a disqualifying factor. Show me actual impropriety with Hagel regarding his ties to Iran (i.e., he’s bought and paid for by the Iranian government), and I’ll listen.

Kman – Is that what it says in the dictionary or is it a special definition created only when conservatives use it?

No, it’s common sense. There are STRONG ties and there are WEAK ties, and there are ties in between. Saying that there are Hagel/Iran “ties” is about as descriptive as saying that cola has “taste” — i.e., not very descriptive at all.

Kman – Amirahmadi is a moderate Muslim, one of those who does not believe Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations or that Iran sponsors terror. He is somebody the useless idiots in the Obama Administration should get to know better. I’m surprised he isn’t training people in the State Department or FBI already.

“There are STRONG ties and there are WEAK ties, and there are ties in between. Saying that there are Hagel/Iran “ties” is about as descriptive as saying that cola has “taste” — i.e., not very descriptive at all.”

Kman – Finally, you admit there are ties between Hagel and despotic, terroristic regime in Iran. We are making progress at last.

So this outfit, seems a more prestigious front then NIAC, Admiral Fallon, in Daley’s link, was the one who talked himself out of a job, with this cumba ya routine on Iran, he was blocking Petraeus’s implimentation of the counter insurgency strategy,

==Show me actual impropriety with Hagel regarding his ties to Iran (i.e., he’s bought and paid for by the Iranian government), and I’ll listen.==

If Hagel is confirmed, at the point you deign to listen or see evidence of “actual impropriety” it may be too late for the rest of us. I suppose a city nuked here or abroad by Iran might do it for you. Or maybe not. Maybe you’ll rationalize it by thinking the victim city “deserved it” and there was nothing the government could have done in the months and years leading up to it.

With Bush, you had (among other things) Saudi investment in the Carlyle Group (the private equity firm of Bush Senior), the Saudi funding of Bush Senior’s presidential library, and tons of the lucrative contracts from the Saudis to Halliburton (when Dick Cheney was CEO).

BP, Facebook, Google, GE, and many other companies have given large sums to Obama and his campaigns, but you don’t seem concerned about that even though he’s a sitting President. What makes these “significant ties” and the Hagel-Amirahmadi relationship insignificant? (When you answer, keep in mind your comment 144, where you said people and organizations can donate to whoever they want without tarnishing the recipient.)

Finally, where do “ties” become significant, Kman? When they feel like it or do you have an objective measure that applies?

Appearance of impropriety is often explained away.

Maybe for politicians but not for lawyers, and you’re a lawyer. Isn’t the appearance of impropriety generally a disqualification for lawyers? That’s why I want to hear you explain it, because you understand the term. Telling me it’s easy to “explain away” is not explaining it, it’s excusing it without reason.

Did the Alavi Foundation contribute to Hagel’s Atlantic Institute or whatever it was called?

I don’t know, but what does it mean if they did? The Alavi Foundation has given money to Harvard University, Princeton University, Columbia University, University of California, McGill University, Rutgers University, Catholic University of America, University of Maryland, University of Michigan, University of Arizona, Portland State University, Binghamton State University, San Diego State University, Sacred Heart University, University of Pennsylvania, University of Wisconsin, Boston University, Georgia State University, Ohio State University, University of Virginia, University of Texas, Carleton University, University of Alberta, University of Southern California, California State University, Kutztown University, Hunter College, Bard College, Lake Forest College, the Hartford Seminar, the Red Cross (for Hurricane Sandy relief), the Clinton Foundation (for Hurricane Katrina relief), Action Against Hunger (to help Haiti earthquake victims), various 9/11 charities, and the American Museum of Natural History, to name a few.

Are all these institutions now “tied” to the Iranian dictatorship? Are the people associated with these institutions now “tied” to the Iranian dictatorship? And what does that mean — they are all now tools of the Iranian government?

Are all these institutions now “tied” to the Iranian dictatorship? Are the people associated with these institutions now “tied” to the Iranian dictatorship? And what does that mean — they are all now tools of the Iranian government?

All of these institutions have opened the door to questions about whether they can be influenced by foreign money. And I bet they have been.

BP, Facebook, Google, GE, and many other companies have given large sums to Obama and his campaigns, but you don’t seem concerned about that even though he’s a sitting President.

Well, you’re wrong. I’m concerned about all corporate and special interest influence in campaign finance, regardless of party.

Finally, where do “ties” become significant, Kman? When they feel like it or do you have an objective measure that applies?

When they are of such degree that one party is beholden to the other. Asking someone to speak at a class or symposium — and even paying him to speak — doesn’t strike me as the kind of thing which would cause Hagel’s views (and certainly not his patriotism) to become compromised.

By the way, Kman, I think the Bush-Saudi ties were as troubling as the Hagel-Amirahdani ties. Both raise questions about where the parties’ loyalties lie, so I give extra scrutiny when decisions are made that involve those interests. Why don’t you?

When they are of such degree that one party is beholden to the other. Asking someone to speak at a class or symposium — and even paying him to speak — doesn’t strike me as the kind of thing which would cause Hagel’s views (and certainly not his patriotism) to become compromised.

So this is basically a First Amendment issue to you. Speaking — no matter to whom or for what reason — is never a concern? Or is it the fact that it’s in an academic setting, because I doubt that you would find it palatable for a candidate to speak to groups you consider racist or sexist.

By the way, Kman, I think the Bush-Saudi ties were as troubling as the Hagel-Amirahdani ties. Both raise questions about where the parties’ loyalties lie, so I give extra scrutiny when decisions are made that involve those interests. Why don’t you?

Seriously? Over his career, Hagel probably got tons of money for making speaking engagements. I assume he actually was paid by Rutgers, but even if not, it’s not like his entire income or even a small portion of it over his life comes from the Iranian government. Show me evidence that he is getting regular paychecks from Iran (or an Iranian front), and I’ll be on your side.

Show me evidence that he is getting regular paychecks from Iran (or an Iranian front), and I’ll be on your side. We have different standards. I don’t have to find the money in the freezer to worry that someone has a bias. I assume people have biases and look at their “ties” to tell me what they are.

“Maybe for politicians but not for lawyers, and you’re a lawyer. Isn’t the appearance of impropriety generally a disqualification for lawyers? That’s why I want to hear you explain it, because you understand the term. Telling me it’s easy to “explain away” is not explaining it, it’s excusing it without reason.”

The question is whether Hagel wants to be used and/or paid by the Iranians because he supports them. The fact that he identifies with and supports so many issues that benefit the Iranians — limits on Israel, against Iranian sanctions, and apparently open to containment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions — suggests to me that Hagel is willing to be used.

Why do you suppose that Hagel was explicitly invited to speak at Rutgers, rather than, say, Norm Coleman, or John McCain, or Jon Kyl ?

Coincidentally, Hagel turned out to be the guy who has made numerous statements about Israel, Hezbollah, and Hamas that gives goose bumps to the Barry Obamas and Brett Kimberlins of the world, and makes stomachs turn among the subscribers to the Weekly Standards and National Reviews of the world.

With you lefties, everything that looks bad for your team is always innocently explained to be a “coincidence.”

You sound like the upstanding six-figure salary city councilman who gets caught by the police at 2 in the morning, driving his expensive 5-series Mercedes down a skanky back alley that is notorious for drug dealing and prostitution, and all he can offer as an excuse is, “Uhhhh, I took a wrong turn, and got lost—so I was just asking that drug dealer nice gentleman in the baggy jeans who you saw running away for the directions to the library !”

See, Kman, the problem you left wing thugs have is that you can never be honest about your objectives and sympathies, because if you were honest, you know you’d be rejected by the majority of even the lowest, most dysfunctional classes among society.
And that my left wing kooky friend, is the entire premise of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals….lie about your intentions.

After all, there wouldn’t be a need for a “boof of rules” if the objective could be reached during daylight hours in full view.

I think the Iranians use their money to bolster people like Hagel who support issues that benefit them.

Well, Hagel’s existing position on Iran is obviously a cause for concern if you disagree with it (as you seem to; I don’t). But that’s a far cry from suggesting that his position was bought and paid by the Iranian dictatorship.

In other words, Hagel’s views would be Hagel’s views whether or not he was asked to speak at Rutgers in 2007 or not. There’s no influence-peddling.

The fact that he identifies with and supports so many issues that benefit the Iranians… suggests to me that Hagel is willing to be used.

Well, I don’t see how. He’s not going to be setting policy. Obama does that.

Kenneth Wagner, who attended the 2010 speech while a Rutgers University law student, provided the Washington Free Beacon with an email he sent during the event to a contact at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The email is time-stamped April 9, 2010, at 11:37 AM.

“I am sitting in a lecture by Chuck Hagel at Rutgers,” Wagner wrote in the email. “He basically said that Israel has violated every UN resolution since 1967, that Israel has violated its agreements with the quartet, that it was risking becoming an apartheid state if it didn’t allow the Palestinians to form a state. He said that the settlements were getting close to the point where a contiguous Palestinian state would be impossible.”

“He said that he [thought] that Netanyahu was a radical and that even [former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi] Livni, who was hard nosed thought he was too radical and so wouldn’t join in a coalition [government] with him. … He said that Hamas has to be brought in to any peace negotiation,” Wagner wrote.

AIPAC had no comment.

Wagner said the remarks were made during the Q&A session. The speech took place at the Rutgers School of Law in Newark.

Earlier, the former Republican presidential nominee said he expects Hagel to be confirmed as defense secretary even though he doesn’t plan to vote for him.

“I don’t believe he is qualified,” McCain said. “But I don’t believe that we should hold up his nomination any further.”

Well, if he’s not qualified, why wouldn’t the Senate hold up his nomination? One could flip McCain’s question to Gregory back on him — “Do you care” that the Department of Defense will be headed by an unqualified appointee, or not?

Hagel could have **** himself during that hearing and the Senate would confirm him.

But I’m going to channel our new Secretary of State Hanoi John F’n Kerry and propose if the troops didn’t want a drooling idiot restructuring the DoD they should have stayed gone to an Ivy League college instead of joining up.

I’m thinking that to complete the picture Hagel’s first act as SecDef will be to name the next POS San Antonio class LPD after Fidel Castro.

Specifically, Mr. Hagel’s Rutgers speech was co-sponsored by the university’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, chaired at the time by an Iranian-American academic named Hooshang Amirahmadi. The Middle Eastern Studies department was, in turn, generously funded by the New York-based Alavi Foundation, whose nominal purpose is to promote the teaching of Islamic culture and Persian civilization.

But Alavi was something else entirely. In December 2009, Farshid Jahedi, its president, pleaded guilty to a count of obstructing justice by destroying documents, after the feds charged the foundation with being a front group for the Iranian government and seized foundation assets in the U.S. worth about $500 million.

“For two decades,” charged U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, “the Alavi Foundation’s affairs have been directed by various Iranian officials, including Iranian ambassadors to the United Nations, in violation of a series of American laws.”

The charges arose from a grand jury subpoena concerning Alavi’s relationship to Iran’s Bank Melli, which is under U.S., U.K. and EU sanctions. Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies describes Bank Melli as “one of Iran’s most critical access points to the global financial system, enabling Tehran’s world-wide network of money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation-related transactions.”

As for Mr. Amirahmadi, he is currently running as a long-shot candidate to succeed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran. Though he portrays himself as a reformist, Iranian-Americans who follow him describe him as a “Rafsanjanist” eager to make the regime’s case in Washington. In 2009, the New York Post quoted Mr. Amirahmadi as saying that “Iran has not been involved in any terrorist organization,” and that “neither Hezbollah nor Hamas are terrorist organizations.”

At the time of his speech, Mr. Hagel was a member of the Senate’s Intelligence Committee. The Alavi Foundation had been under suspicion by the feds since at least 2003. Mr. Amirahmadi makes no secret of his political leanings and ambitions. Did nobody on Mr. Hagel’s or the Committee’s staff vet his speaking gigs before he gave them? And what does he think today about lending his prestige to Mr. Amirahmadi and his department?

Those are questions to which the Senate ought to have answers before it considers a floor vote on Mr. Hagel’s nomination.

Umm, here’s a thought. Why not pick someone with military and intel experience who has also demonstrated some ability to run large, complex organizations?

Instead of some guy who’s only going to get confirmed because he was once a member of the senatorial club.

Kmart can close his eyes and put his hands over his ears and keep repeating “Hagel’s qualified. Hagel’s qualified,…” all he wants but that doesn’t make it true.

But then if we’re going to have a Director of National Intelligence who can actually say something as moronically incompetent as the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular” why not scrape something off the bottom of your shoe and nominate it for SecDef?

Who knows? Maybe it’s best that the Secretary of Defense should be someone who won’t be able to figure out Windows 8. Maybe that means he’ll do less damage than someone who’s even halfway competent.

==Well, I don’t see how. He’s not going to be setting policy. Obama does that.==

Snort. Time was when the cabinet members were chosen to be a team of sober and learned advisors to the president in their areas of educational attainment or special other expertise. That of course is because no president has the background and depth of knowledge to formulate policy decisions on his own without various inputs including an honest assessment of policy implementation feasibility across disciplines. And woe to the CIC who thinks he does. All presidents need trustworthy critics and insightful advisors– even (perhaps especially) President Obama. Does Hagel sound like that guy? Or maybe do the President and Ms. Jarrett want Hagel because he so clearly isn’t “that guy”?

As Politico reported Tuesday, former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel was paid $120,000 in 2012 to work as a “senior adviser” to Gallup, the Omaha-based polling and research firm. Gallup won’t explain what services or expertise Hagel actually provided.

Now, I’ll giove you an idea. A Gallup client (like a foreign government, or a something supported by a foreign government) could have insisted on that, thus laundering a payoff to Hagel..

396. The question is whether Hagel wants to be used and/or paid by the Iranians because he supports them. The fact that he identifies with and supports so many issues that benefit the Iranians — limits on Israel, against Iranian sanctions, and apparently open to containment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions — suggests to me that Hagel is willing to be used.

418. All presidents need trustworthy critics and insightful advisors– even (perhaps especially) President Obama. Does Hagel sound like that guy? Or maybe do the President and Ms. Jarrett want Hagel because he so clearly isn’t “that guy”?

Comment by elissa (c71083) — 2/19/2013 @ 12:46 pm

This President likes to surround himself with mediocrities (and that’s just looking at the “cream” of his minions; they get worse from there).

And by “president” I of course mean Valerie Jarrett. Not the Golf-Pro-In-Chief. Who apparently isn’t really interested when a US diplomatic mission is being assaulted.

I don’t know how anyone could have witnessed the Hagel and Benghazi hearings and not been appalled. It’s all part of a pattern.

But then we live in a country in which Jesse Jackson Jr. can get reelected as many times as he wants from the nut house.

I’m pretty certain that a few months ago you characterized Netanyahu as a ‘war criminal.’

You’re not putting up a very spirited defense otherwise.
If someone had accused me of calling Netanyahu a ‘war criminal,’ I’d respond by saying, “Netanyahu is awesome ! He’s no ‘war criminal,’ he’s just acting in self-defense against blood-thirsty scumbags !”

Truth is, Mr. Sycophant of Brett Kimberlin, you subscribe to the left wing anger at Israel for it being the proverbial flower bed blooming in the desert, while at the same time so many of the Pan-Arab states are drowning in poverty and pathology.

I guess it must be Allah’s will, huh ?

Kman, you share the same anti-Israel passion that boils in the hot blood of Obama, Ayers, Wright, Farakkhan, Susan Rice, and Major Hassan.

That’s why you are spending hours upon hours over two days, fighting tooth and nail for an anti-Semite such as that dumb ol’ hick Chuckie Hagel—it’s passion.

Say, does anyone know (or have asked) what Valerie Jarrett was doing while the Benghazi “facility” was being attacked, and our Ambassador killed along with three other fine Americans?
And what about National Security Advisor Tom Donilon?

As the Huffington Post notes, this “study” was “funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institute of Health.” The federal government has become so politicized that it can even use money intended for cancer research to demonize the administration’s critics. Here’s a link to the government-funded study by left-wing activists Stanton Glantz and Amanda Fallin. “Co-author, Amanda Fallin, PhD, RN, adds: ‘The records indicate that the Tea Party has been shaped by the tobacco industry, and is not a spontaneous grassroots movement at all.’” The reasoning is based on associating the Tea Party not only with groups that used the word “Tea Party” at some point in time, but also with completely different groups that existed back in the 1980s and didn’t use “Tea Party” terminology at all, but merely happened to share their opposition to big government. As syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum notes, the study argues that supporting “private property rights, consumer choice and limited government” can make you a tobacco-industry tool regardless of whether you get any tobacco money or not.

Repeat after me; Hagel is not a tool of the Iranians just because he took their money.

And he calls Israel an apartheid state.

But I’ll bet he has no problem with working with the Muslim Brotherhood when it’s not busy torching Coptic Christians’ homes, business and churches.

And, hey, when they are otherwise occupied religiously cleansing their country like the Saudis he can always work with the Syrian rebels who when they take a break from fighting Assad relax by driving the Christians out of their country, too.

But Israel is the apartheid state per Hagel.

Actually I think Hagel is more likely to name the next LPD-17 after Yassir Arafat. Or some other “freedom fighter” who has a street named after him or her in Gaza.

We were reminded last night about the lies leading us into the Iraq War. To an Iraqi mom, who does she think the terrorists are? Hagel had the balls to question our version of terrorism, as did a number of other patriotic Americans, like Colin Powell. We need more truth-tellers like these patriots, and fewer McCarthyites like Senator Cruz and Steve57.

Little Red Writing Chait is of course reasoning from the assumption that President Obama is moderate and wise, that he holds an undying ardor for Israel, and is manifestly determined to prevent a nuclear Iran, come hell or highly enriched uranium. It is not surprising that Chait should find it so trying to incorporate the president’s nomination of Hagel into a web of beliefs founded on such givens.

But as far as old Bill Occam and I are concerned, the most plausible explanation for why President Obama nominated Chuck Hagel is that . . . he wanted to. He thinks Chuck Hagel will be effective in administering the national-security policy of candidate Obama circa 2007 or 2008, and even of President Obama circa 2009. And that’s the policy President Obama is interested in pursuing in his second term. In other words, the reason President Obama’s defense nominee sucks is that President Obama’s defense policy sucks.

…Maybe the best way to illustrate what the far left, far right, and dead center are missing about Hagel is with the following dilemma: Hagel’s foreign-policy views are clearly to the left of the president’s rhetoric for the last couple of years. That’s not even debatable. In practice, that will mean one of two things. Either the views expressed in Obama’s rhetoric of the last couple of years will continue to be the policy of the United States, in which case Hagel will be frustrated and constrained as defense secretary, and relegated to the role of mere bureaucrat-in-chief of the Pentagon. That, needless to say, does not appear to be his strong suit. The other possibility is that a second-term Obama will pursue a foreign policy closer to the one Hagel has avowed in speeches and writings over the last several years: a considerably smaller military, a net reduction in global power projection, especially in the most dangerous parts of the world, generous détente with Iran, skeptical neutrality or even hostility toward Israel, and so on. In that case, Hagel will be free to foolishly pursue his boss’s foolish vision.

Hagel can thus incompetently execute a decent strategy or competently execute an indecent one. So flip a coin. Heads they win, tails we lose.

Hagel’s foreign-policy views are clearly to the left of the president’s rhetoric for the last couple of years.

My sense (and suspicion) is that Obama’s inner leftism has been yearning to break out and breathe free, in particular when it comes to foreign policy draped with his “goddamn America” desires. Sort of like the way that Obama originally opposed (and feigned disquiet about) same-sex marriage and now just about demands that it be sanctioned, embraced and feted.

If one goes far left enough, and far right enough, the two can find common ground—at least in terms of the Middle East and Israel, and the peculiar ass-backwards nature of a variety of leftists and oddball rightists in the way they perceive the good and bad sides, the good and bad guys.

I do accept as true with all of the concepts you’ve offered to your post. They are really convincing and can certainly work. Still, the posts are very brief for newbies. May just you please prolong them a little from subsequent time? Thanks for the post.